[TLS] Re: Working Group Last Call for Use of ML-DSA in TLS 1.3

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

Not sure what you're talking about here, Michael. Can you explain?

-Ekr


On Wed, May 6, 2026 at 12:36 PM Ackermann, Michael <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> HOSTILE TAKEOVER???????????
>
>
>
> *From:* Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 6, 2026 12:51 PM
> *To:* David Benjamin <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* TLS List <[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* [TLS] Re: Working Group Last Call for Use of ML-DSA in TLS 1.3
>
>
>
> [External email]
>
> +100 to this.
>
>
>
> With any luck, we can take a pause on the discussion of this topic
> on-list. I am aware that there may be pending appeals, but we have a
> process for addressing those that does not require on-list debate.
>
>
>
> -Ekr
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 6, 2026 at 6:23 AM David Benjamin <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> Thanks, Deirdre, Joe, and Sean, for all your hard work in navigating these
> WG discussions!
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 6, 2026 at 9:09 AM Sean Turner <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Replying to the original consensus call message.
>
>
>
> RFC 2418 Section 3.3 lays out the criteria for “rough consensus”:
>
>
>
>    Working groups make decisions through a "rough consensus" process.
>
>    IETF consensus does not require that all participants agree although
>
>    this is, of course, preferred.  In general, the dominant view of the
>
>    working group shall prevail.  (However, it must be noted that
>
>    "dominance" is not to be determined on the basis of volume or
>
>    persistence, but rather a more general sense of agreement.) Consensus
>
>    can be determined by a show of hands, humming, or any other means on
>
>    which the WG agrees (by rough consensus, of course).  Note that 51%
>
>    of the working group does not qualify as "rough consensus" and 99% is
>
>    better than rough.  It is up to the Chair to determine if rough
>
>    consensus has been reached.
>
>
>
> In this case, during WGLC there was an almost 4:1 ratio for progressing
> this draft, which we judge fits within the numeric “more than 51% and less
> than 99%” range suggested by this text for “rough consensus” and represents
> the “dominant view of the working group”.
>
>
>
> In assessing rough consensus, we also considered the nature of the
> objections. In reviewing the list traffic, the majority of objections
> related to the status of pure MLDSA versus composite MLDSA-ECC, including
> (1) we should not publish a pure MLDSA specification at all; (2) we should
> recommend composites over pure MLDSA; (3) we should publish the composite
> and pure MLDSA specifications concurrently. While there was substantial
> disagreement on these points, we believe that the discussion on-list
> sufficiently aired the respective points of view and that the right
> approach is fundamentally a judgement call based on weighing various
> technical factors, which each WG participant needs to make for themselves.
> We see no reason to believe that participants were not able to make
> informed judgements.
>
>
>
> Conclusion: The chairs believe there is consensus to proceed with
> publication of this draft as an RFC with Recommended=N for those people
> that want to use this algorithm, and a future Standards Action will be
> needed to make a change to Recommended=Y, if anyone has the willingness to
> undergo this heated discussion again.
>
>
> For transparency purposes, the chairs note that we received a
> complaint/appeal about the consensus call. The message was moderated due to
> a previous notice of moderation; see [1], and the complaint/appeal contains
> a derivative work notice. As a result, the message was not sent to the mail
> list and we will not process the complaint/appeal as-is. If the message is
> resubmitted without the notice, the message can be posted to the mail list
> and we will process the complaint/appeal.
>
>
>
> The Chairs,
>
> Deirdre, Joe, and Sean
>
> [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/no0lW8r_wIPGF1ZXWB3EaGywh9Q/
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/no0lW8r_wIPGF1ZXWB3EaGywh9Q/__;!!DVqnNCPqsA!H9Py_Rt__O8pjzUI4OMX2OusR6HFRbXek-Wm9dHUdjLkLaTuW7-CKZAvUaDoN8M1vUJ4yLIQHQ$>
>
>
>
> On Apr 28, 2026, at 16:24, Sean Turner <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi! The chairs have judged that there is consensus to progress this I-D.
> We will work with the authors to get a new version submitted and we will
> get to work on the Shepherd Write-Up.
>
>
>
> The Chairs,
>
> Deirdre, Joe, and Sean
>
>
>
> On Apr 9, 2026, at 15:30, Sean Turner <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
>
> This is the working group last call for Use of ML-DSA in TLS 1.3. Please
> review draft-ietf-tls-mldsa [1] and reply to this thread indicating if you
> think it is ready for publication or not. If you do not think it is ready
> please indicate why. This call will end on April 23, 2026.
>
> REMINDER: If you have not done so recently, review the TLS WG's Mail List
> Procedures; see [2].
>
> The Chairs,
> Deirdre, Joe, and Sean
>
> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-mldsa/
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-mldsa/__;!!DVqnNCPqsA!H9Py_Rt__O8pjzUI4OMX2OusR6HFRbXek-Wm9dHUdjLkLaTuW7-CKZAvUaDoN8M1vUKcrqJCBA$>
> [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/ucdImHExlbOf4Q3BCG81gjzi2xE/
> <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/ucdImHExlbOf4Q3BCG81gjzi2xE/__;!!DVqnNCPqsA!H9Py_Rt__O8pjzUI4OMX2OusR6HFRbXek-Wm9dHUdjLkLaTuW7-CKZAvUaDoN8M1vUJmOlAILQ$>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>
> The information contained in this communication is highly confidential and
> is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom this
> communication is directed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
> hereby notified that any viewing, copying, disclosure or distribution of
> this information is prohibited. Please notify the sender, by electronic
> mail or telephone, of any unintended receipt and delete the original
> message without making any copies.
>
> Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network of Michigan are
> nonprofit corporations and independent licensees of the Blue Cross and Blue
> Shield Association.
>